In the data provider market, everyone loudly claims to have the best coverage, the best quality, at the best price.
The problem? No provider fully assumes transparency of its data. Companies wishing to evaluate data providers often face major obstacles:
Companies thus often find themselves buying unreliable data, based on summary studies using poor indicators (like coverage rate).
We conducted this study for sales teams, Revenue & Sales Ops, prospecting agencies, and everyone who picks up their phone every day to create new opportunities.
Our goal: to offer the market a reliable, impartial, fully transparent, and replicable benchmark, open to verification by the entire community.
For each of the 711 contacts from 103 different industries, we have a LinkedIn profile URL associated with a valid mobile phone number.
Loading data...
| Tool | Couverture % | Précision % | Unique Numbers | Portables vs Standard % | Max numbers / contact | Public price / mobile (€) | Actual price / mobile (€) |
|---|
* Kaspr was acquired by Cognism in 2022 and they share the same data.
We extracted and collected mobile phone numbers from professional email signatures.
Enriched contacts ÷ Contacts to enrich
The coverage rate is often used by companies to evaluate data providers, but it is an incomplete indicator. A provider can enrich 100% of the requested profiles without the provided numbers necessarily being reliable. This indicator remains useful, however, for globally estimating market coverage. We recommend prioritizing the accuracy rate before examining the coverage rate.
Valid and verified mobile numbers ÷ Enriched contacts
The accuracy rate is essential because it represents the proportion of valid and verified numbers among the numbers provided. If a provider gives you 100 numbers of which 70 are incorrect, your teams will waste considerable time calling the wrong people.
Some providers can supply up to 7 numbers per contact (extreme case observed). In France, as mobile numbers are frequently reassigned, even if a provider supplies one correct number out of seven, your team will lose a tremendous amount of time (and motivation) calling the remaining 6 wrong people.
This indicator is particularly interesting because it represents the number of unique contacts that a provider has and its competitors do not. This means that if the entire market uses the same providers, the one that stands out with a high number of unique numbers allows your team to reach prospects less solicited by your competitors. This indicator is determined by a cross-comparison between the numbers provided by each of the tested providers.
Price per enriched number ÷ Accuracy rate
We use the highest public price for number enrichment divided by the accuracy rate to determine the actual cost of a valid number. For example, if enrichment costs €1 but only 50% of the provided numbers are valid, the actual cost of a valid number is €2.
This indicator helps to better contextualize the prices displayed by some providers.
Many sales teams have told us they receive a significant number of switchboard numbers from certain providers. We have therefore decided to explicitly include this indicator in our study.
Anyone wishing to audit or replicate this study can request private access to the list of 711 received emails, where the association between the public LinkedIn profile and the mobile number is visible.
This access is granted subject to strict confidentiality, in accordance with GDPR.
Just write to us at the following address: simon@cleon1.com.
